FDA intends to take action against non-FDA-approved GLP-1 drugs

The US is the only country, aside from New Zealand, that allows direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription only medicines.

Are we cutting off people's access to meds or do they just not want to pay what they cost?

"To be circumvented. Regards, Uber, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Antropic, OpenAI, AirBnB and others"

And ANDA absolutely does require supply chain inspections, first at approval then random inspections there after.

Whats Hims and Hers was doing was compounding (turning the chemical into a formulation patients can take) under an exception due to limited supply. Supply issues are over, so they can not longer compound.

I do t think anything is wrong with the US system here. These patients got access under a temporary exception, they have the option to obtain a supply through other channels going forward. If affordability is an issue, the manufacturers have several programs that make these drugs affordablez

The US is a funny thing: no issue cutting access to Healthcare in general, education, healthy food etc.

But it is all the rage when a pill can undo people's bad habits.

Are they? This example seems to be a clear contradiction of your first point. Stuff like this weakens the authority and credibility of the FDA, allowing legitimacy to people like RFK.

Brief research indicates otherwise unless you're talking about a handful of Brand name Rx. For generics, CostPlus and other options are still better pricing.

https://www.healthcompiler.com/cost-plus-drugs-vs-trumprx-ho...

The website is very good marketing for people who don't typically follow drug pricing. Here is more about why the only folks who will benefit are those without insurance—but those people will find better prices in several places, sometimes significantly better prices [1]. Further, it's likely that they're already finding those prices, since the website prices are no better than what you can get today outside fertility medication; and fertility medications are neither new, nor the most expensive part of that process.

This site has nothing to do with the effective subsidies that Americans provide to the world, and it will change nothing about that. The major thing that would help all Americans, negotiating for drug prices, has been neutered by the current administration. In fact, an executive order has specifically lengthened the amount of time that new drugs will be able to charge higher prices to Americans [2].

We should all be very careful in parsing news items that are not in our field of expertise.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/health/trumprx-online-dru...

2. https://www.kff.org/medicare/the-effect-of-delaying-the-sele...

The US obesity rate is in the 40% range.

The most effective use of public funds would be to simply buy out the patent and give it out for free. It will save so much in future medical costs it's a no-brainer.

It can't possibly be a net positive. The first pill costs $1B and subsequent ones costs 50 cents. Yes, the U.S. pays more, but the result can only be some combination of 1) other countries also paying more and 2) fewer new drugs.

I'm not understanding this part. If these drugs have solved obesity and the whole host of associated diseases, including the number one killer; heart disease, shouldn't the insurance companies be clambering over each other to cover these drugs and heavily encouraging their use considering the cost reduction on the overall health system.

And if the incentives are misaligned with insurance companies why are governments not handing out GLP-1s to anyone who asks?

It's often up to the employer whether these meds are covered - many insurers just offer it as an option to check or not check.

That said, even at 3-6k/year, it wouldn't surprise me if these drugs were net savings to cover for a lot of patients due to their extremely positive effects as preventative care.

India wins (because Indian pharma gets IP and branding transfers). The Trump admin wins (the right strategic lobbying was done). The GOP wins (strategic tariffs on Iowa, North Dakota, and Montana lentil and soybean oil exports were about to kick off in India after they were hit by similar tariffs from China). The American consumer (who voted for Trump) loses.

Welcome to a trade war.

With glp-1's I'm down over 50 lbs, my a1c is a much more manageable around 4.0-4.5 and it makes it much easier to exercise and portion control is a huge benefit. Not to mention a buncha other things like triglicerides and blood pressure have come down due to exercise and eating better. it sucks i have to take it forever, but at the same time i feel a ton better physically, and if i loose 50 more lbs, and labs continue to show improvement, i can reduce the cocktail of other meds I'm on my doc says.

Cigna denied me at first until my doc appealed twice. Cigna wouldnt cover because i wasnt a full diabetic so wasnt on insulin. I would've had to pay close to $1k a month to take it otherwise. Thank goodness for a tenacious doctor!

Just have insurers stop insuring ozempic/wegovy but have them insure mounjaro/zepbound and it’s a done deal. No need to even ban it.

The EU trade bazooka measure (Anti-Coercion Instrument) allows the EU to legally suspend patents, copyright, etc. if a member state is threatened, for example using tarifs. Which the US was a actively doing.

At the end of day, it doesn't matter the Danish government cannot surrender. Following WW2 it was made illegal for the government to do so. And voters would never support, not would Trump have the patience for Danish constitutional changes.

I'm quite convinced that:

(A) An invasion would have been a shooting matter. Even if the shooting would eventually come to an end.

(B) Denmark and most of EU and large parts of the world would never recognize an annexation.

(C) Congress in the US wouldn't recognize the annexation.

(D) EU and US would be both have entirely unnecessary and massive depression as massive assets would be seized or written off.

(E) Russia and China would be thrilled.

It was an allround shit show.

Trying to go further would have upended economic ties across the Atlantic. Causing massive economic depression on both sides.

But at the specific measures of parents: HUGE parts of US economy is Intellectual Property -- how dumb would the US have to be to declare IP laws invalid?

Why is this a bad thing? The quickest way to fix the medical/insurance/bureaucracy complex is to just allow people to sell direct to consumer.

The best (worst) example of this is CPAP. Ideally you'd just be able to go and buy one for $300, but instead there is a complex around "necessity" and "prescription", which creates an effective monopoly where the exact same hardware can be sold at different price points with software locked features.

If even a "simple" mechanical device like this which violates no patents and can't materially harm a person in any way can be restricted on grounds of paternalistic "safety", then one would be right to remain skeptical of the claim that the FDA is restricting action against unauthorized semaglutide knockoffs to

>safeguard consumers from drugs for which the FDA cannot verify quality, safety, or efficacy.

Can you please explain (TFA doesn't mention patent laws, just unregulated drugs)? For example, my understanding is that semaglutide is protected by patent in the US - I had assumed HIMS was including semaglutide in some of their formulations under an agreement with the patent holder, but I guess that's not correct?

Side note, I'm all for the true innovators being able to patent drugs (like semaglutide) that they put a lot of research dollars into, but seriously fuck all these additional "method of delivery" and "formulation" patents that are bullshit that just get added on later by the patent holder solely as a way to try to restrict the entry of generics into the market after the original patent expires.